What's the Point?

Foucault on Sexuality and Beyond—March 30
A big part of any religion is its focus on sexual relationships. Nearly every religion has some kind of commandment or guideline to keep its followers chaste. Or, it has some provision to excuse certain members of consequence when they take multiple partners. As a lifeguard in junior high for a popular water park, I was thankful to not be old enough to work any of the night parties when an organization of any kind could rent the park for its exclusive use. Why was I thankful? Because that meant I didn’t have to say no if they asked me to guard for the gay and lesbian church that rented out the park once a summer. Apparently, the church was a popular one for homosexual couples. To this day, I dismiss the illicit rumors of the event as exaggerations of adolescent minds. Luckily, I don’t remember the rumors very well. What seems to be different about the LDS perspective on sex is that it is neither intrinsically good nor bad. It’s part of the family unit, inasmuch as children are a product of sex. Foucault’s big argument of the sexed society is that it became embodied—sexual acts are a part of the body. However, LDS believe that sex is part of a relationship; and only one kind of relationship. It exists more to bring two people together, rather than provide pleasure for one or the other...hence the aversion to masturbation, which does not contribute to any relationship.
Sex occupies a large portion of our society in general, doesn’t it? Music is sexed up by video. A musician, especially female, is not very marketable unless she has sex appeal; same with males, but on a seemingly less steep curve. Josh Groban, Eric Clapton, Bono, John Mayer: all successful, amazing musicians; but they are so ugly. Of course, in calling them ugly, I make no value-judgment with respect to their character or personal morals. The musicianship for which they are famous is not under critique with my subjective ‘ugly’ comment. I simply comment that they are popular in spite of their looks. Generally speaking, however, modern-musicians are sexed.
Sex appeal has become an integral part of all aspect of popular culture. I can’t figure out what cheerleaders not wearing very many clothes have to do with football. Even more perplexing were the scantily-clad dancers at the Coyotes’ hockey game I went to once. They were dancing on the ice!? That doesn’t even make sense. Maybe they had on special shoes, but it didn’t look like it. Almost Every PG-13 movie seemingly has a requirement for at least one sex scene. You know it is a requirement because oftentimes it doesn’t even fit the story. I’ve just learned that I can still understand the movie without needing to watch that kind of part.
Apparently, I am also a sexed being; although more of a sexed subject than a sexed object. (I raised a concern to my older brother once: “I’m afraid that all these girls who can’t keep their hands off of me just want me for my body and not for my mind or personality.” He didn’t miss a beat: “You know, Der, Sport Illustrated models have the same problem. They never know.”) By me discussing this, moreover being bothered by it, I am making sex an issue. Hence my claim at being a sexed being. Does the fact the Foucault discuss it also make it an issue for him? Apparently, it was not an issue for the Greeks. It was just another part of pleasure; another part of the good life. Today, we cringe at the idea that Greek men had relations with boys. Socrates is even discredited to some extant because of that. While we know that this is wrong from a gospel point-of-view, we cannot rely on a society-based argument and stay logically legitimate. Sex had a different context then compared to now. To those who believe in the exclusivity of sex in marriage, relations with boys must logically be as unacceptable as relations between two consenting adults who are committed to each other, and even maybe “love” each other.